campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia:Requests for Adminship/Approval Vote
This debate has been archived. To preserve the discussion, please do not edit it. Any comments should be posted to the The result of this Approval Vote was Approve by a vote of 6 support to 1'' against, with ''0 abstention Poll :We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting". This vote will determine whether will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page. Requests for Adminship approval Approve Disapprove Abstain Vote ends October 5th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count. Confirmation of vote (6/1/0) :Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form: :: ::If you are suggesting that democracy is not the best way to go, then I am sure you won't find many people that support you. I do agree that adminship must not be irreversible, but the mechanisms do exist. If an admin's actions were considered incompatible with the site's mission (which has not happened here under any circumstances), the staff would be called in to mediate, and they have the power to de-sysop admins. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::Democracies are not monopolies. We have the concept of minority leaders, for example. We don't eliminate all members of the minority party. :::Where is the policy to de-sysop admins posted? Could you post a link to that? Lou franklin 11:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) ::::You don't need a vote from a majority of the community to become an admin. You just need some votes, and not many people objecting. Since people are supposed to give reasons for their votes, it will be difficult to vote based only on politics. McLurker 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Is that right? The policy is that to become an admin you need "some votes"? How many? Lou franklin 02:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::I think he's referring to the fact that "the community" is made up of more people than are likely to participate in any single vote. What one needs is a majority of the votes cast, as opposed to the votes of the majority of the community. --whosawhatsis? 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::Thanks for the info. That doesn't sound like what he's saying, but he has stumbled on to a good point. Shouldn't the policy spell this out? It doesn't say anything about voting at all. It makes it sound like all you have to do is nominate yourself and you're in. The word "vote" is never mentioned. Lou franklin 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Btw, I just got that joke... you know, YOU asking how many "some votes" is after writing a policy proposal based on what "large numbers" and "small numbers" of people think. Funny stufs. --whosawhatsis? 02:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::::No joke. We can precisely determine how many Wikians vote for an admin because we can count the votes. But we cannot precisely determine how many people would be offended by categorizing "abortion" under "murder", so we have to make a judgement on it. In my judgement a large number of people would object to that categorization. Do you disagree? Lou franklin 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::Classifying it as murder, maybe, but not all of the people who are in favor of it. Fewer would object to its classification as a murder issue, and far fewer still if a less biased term such as "death" or even "manslaughter" was used instead. --whosawhatsis? 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)